skip to main content

This content will become publicly available on January 25, 2023

Title: Separating the NP-Hardness of the Grothendieck Problem from the Little-Grothendieck Problem
Grothendieck’s inequality [Grothendieck, 1953] states that there is an absolute constant K > 1 such that for any n× n matrix A, ‖A‖_{∞→1} := max_{s,t ∈ {± 1}ⁿ}∑_{i,j} A[i,j]⋅s(i)⋅t(j) ≥ 1/K ⋅ max_{u_i,v_j ∈ S^{n-1}}∑_{i,j} A[i,j]⋅⟨u_i,v_j⟩. In addition to having a tremendous impact on Banach space theory, this inequality has found applications in several unrelated fields like quantum information, regularity partitioning, communication complexity, etc. Let K_G (known as Grothendieck’s constant) denote the smallest constant K above. Grothendieck’s inequality implies that a natural semidefinite programming relaxation obtains a constant factor approximation to ‖A‖_{∞ → 1}. The exact value of K_G is yet unknown with the best lower bound (1.67…) being due to Reeds and the best upper bound (1.78…) being due to Braverman, Makarychev, Makarychev and Naor [Braverman et al., 2013]. In contrast, the little Grothendieck inequality states that under the assumption that A is PSD the constant K above can be improved to π/2 and moreover this is tight. The inapproximability of ‖A‖_{∞ → 1} has been studied in several papers culminating in a tight UGC-based hardness result due to Raghavendra and Steurer (remarkably they achieve this without knowing the value of K_G). Briet, Regev and Saket [Briët et al., 2015] proved tight more » NP-hardness of approximating the little Grothendieck problem within π/2, based on a framework by Guruswami, Raghavendra, Saket and Wu [Guruswami et al., 2016] for bypassing UGC for geometric problems. This also remained the best known NP-hardness for the general Grothendieck problem due to the nature of the Guruswami et al. framework, which utilized a projection operator onto the degree-1 Fourier coefficients of long code encodings, which naturally yielded a PSD matrix A. We show how to extend the above framework to go beyond the degree-1 Fourier coefficients, using the global structure of optimal solutions to the Grothendieck problem. As a result, we obtain a separation between the NP-hardness results for the two problems, obtaining an inapproximability result for the Grothendieck problem, of a factor π/2 + ε₀ for a fixed constant ε₀ > 0. « less
Authors:
Editors:
Braverman, Mark
Award ID(s):
1900460
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10339915
Journal Name:
Leibniz international proceedings in informatics
Volume:
215
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
22:1--22:17
ISSN:
1868-8969
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. We investigate the approximability of the following optimization problem. The input is an n× n matrix A=(Aij) with real entries and an origin-symmetric convex body K⊂ ℝn that is given by a membership oracle. The task is to compute (or approximate) the maximum of the quadratic form ∑i=1n∑j=1n Aij xixj=⟨ x,Ax⟩ as x ranges over K. This is a rich and expressive family of optimization problems; for different choices of matrices A and convex bodies K it includes a diverse range of optimization problems like max-cut, Grothendieck/non-commutative Grothendieck inequalities, small set expansion and more. While the literature studied these special cases using case-specific reasoning, here we develop a general methodology for treatment of the approximability and inapproximability aspects of these questions. The underlying geometry of K plays a critical role; we show under commonly used complexity assumptions that polytime constant-approximability necessitates that K has type-2 constant that grows slowly with n. However, we show that even when the type-2 constant is bounded, this problem sometimes exhibits strong hardness of approximation. Thus, even within the realm of type-2 bodies, the approximability landscape is nuanced and subtle. However, the link that we establish between optimization and geometry of Banach spaces allows usmore »to devise a generic algorithmic approach to the above problem. We associate to each convex body a new (higher dimensional) auxiliary set that is not convex, but is approximately convex when K has a bounded type-2 constant. If our auxiliary set has an approximate separation oracle, then we design an approximation algorithm for the original quadratic optimization problem, using an approximate version of the ellipsoid method. Even though our hardness result implies that such an oracle does not exist in general, this new question can be solved in specific cases of interest by implementing a range of classical tools from functional analysis, most notably the deep factorization theory of linear operators. Beyond encompassing the scenarios in the literature for which constant-factor approximation algorithms were found, our generic framework implies that that for convex sets with bounded type-2 constant, constant factor approximability is preserved under the following basic operations: (a) Subspaces, (b) Quotients, (c) Minkowski Sums, (d) Complex Interpolation. This yields a rich family of new examples where constant factor approximations are possible, which were beyond the reach of previous methods. We also show (under commonly used complexity assumptions) that for symmetric norms and unitarily invariant matrix norms the type-2 constant nearly characterizes the approximability of quadratic maximization.« less
  2. A classical multi-agent fence patrolling problem asks: What is the maximum length L of a line fence that k agents with maximum speeds v_1,..., v_k can patrol if each point on the line needs to be visited at least once every unit of time. It is easy to see that L = alpha sum_{i=1}^k v_i for some efficiency alpha in [1/2,1). After a series of works [Czyzowicz et al., 2011; Dumitrescu et al., 2014; Kawamura and Kobayashi, 2015; Kawamura and Soejima, 2015] giving better and better efficiencies, it was conjectured by Kawamura and Soejima [Kawamura and Soejima, 2015] that the best possible efficiency approaches 2/3. No upper bounds on the efficiency below 1 were known. We prove the first such upper bounds and tightly bound the optimal efficiency in terms of the minimum speed ratio s = {v_{max}}/{v_{min}} and the number of agents k. Our bounds of alpha <= 1/{1 + 1/s} and alpha <= 1 - 1/(sqrt{k)+1} imply that in order to achieve efficiency 1 - epsilon, at least k >= Omega(epsilon^{-2}) agents with a speed ratio of s >= Omega(epsilon^{-1}) are necessary. Guided by our upper bounds, we construct a scheme whose efficiency approaches 1, disproving the conjecturemore »stated above. Our scheme asymptotically matches our upper bounds in terms of the maximal speed difference and the number of agents used. A variation of the fence patrolling problem considers a circular fence instead and asks for its circumference to be maximized. We consider the unidirectional case of this variation, where all agents are only allowed to move in one direction, say clockwise. At first, a strategy yielding L = max_{r in [k]} r * v_r where v_1 >= v_2 >= ... >= v_k was conjectured to be optimal by Czyzowicz et al. [Czyzowicz et al., 2011] This was proven not to be the case by giving constructions for only specific numbers of agents with marginal improvements of L. We give a general construction that yields L = 1/{33 log_e log_2(k)} sum_{i=1}^k v_i for any set of agents, which in particular for the case 1, 1/2, ..., 1/k diverges as k - > infty, thus resolving a conjecture by Kawamura and Soejima [Kawamura and Soejima, 2015] affirmatively.« less
  3. The approximate degree of a Boolean function f is the least degree of a real polynomial that approximates f pointwise to error at most 1/3. The approximate degree of f is known to be a lower bound on the quantum query complexity of f (Beals et al., FOCS 1998 and J. ACM 2001). We find tight or nearly tight bounds on the approximate degree and quantum query complexities of several basic functions. Specifically, we show the following. k-Distinctness: For any constant k, the approximate degree and quantum query complexity of the k-distinctness function is Ω(n3/4−1/(2k)). This is nearly tight for large k, as Belovs (FOCS 2012) has shown that for any constant k, the approximate degree and quantum query complexity of k-distinctness is O(n3/4−1/(2k+2−4)). Image size testing: The approximate degree and quantum query complexity of testing the size of the image of a function [n]→[n] is Ω~(n1/2). This proves a conjecture of Ambainis et al. (SODA 2016), and it implies tight lower bounds on the approximate degree and quantum query complexity of the following natural problems. k-Junta testing: A tight Ω~(k1/2) lower bound for k-junta testing, answering the main open question of Ambainis et al. (SODA 2016). Statistical distance frommore »uniform: A tight Ω~(n1/2) lower bound for approximating the statistical distance of a distribution from uniform, answering the main question left open by Bravyi et al. (STACS 2010 and IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2011). Shannon entropy: A tight Ω~(n1/2) lower bound for approximating Shannon entropy up to a certain additive constant, answering a question of Li and Wu (2017). Surjectivity: The approximate degree of the surjectivity function is Ω~(n3/4). The best prior lower bound was Ω(n2/3). Our result matches an upper bound of O~(n3/4) due to Sherstov (STOC 2018), which we reprove using different techniques. The quantum query complexity of this function is known to be Θ(n) (Beame and Machmouchi, Quantum Inf. Comput. 2012 and Sherstov, FOCS 2015). Our upper bound for surjectivity introduces new techniques for approximating Boolean functions by low-degree polynomials. Our lower bounds are proved by significantly refining techniques recently introduced by Bun and Thaler (FOCS 2017).« less
  4. A systematic study of simultaneous optimization of constraint satisfaction problems was initiated by Bhangale et al. [ICALP, 2015]. The simplest such problem is the simultaneous Max-Cut. Bhangale et al. [SODA, 2018] gave a .878-minimum approximation algorithm for simultaneous Max-Cut which is almost optimal assuming the Unique Games Conjecture (UGC). For single instance Max-Cut, Goemans-Williamson [JACM, 1995] gave an α_GW-approximation algorithm where α_GW ≈ .87856720... which is optimal assuming the UGC. It was left open whether one can achieve an α_GW-minimum approximation algorithm for simultaneous Max-Cut. We answer the question by showing that there exists an absolute constant ε₀ ≥ 10^{-5} such that it is NP-hard to get an (α_GW- ε₀)-minimum approximation for simultaneous Max-Cut assuming the Unique Games Conjecture.
  5. The cumulative pebbling complexity of a directed acyclic graph G is defined as cc(G) = min_P ∑_i |P_i|, where the minimum is taken over all legal (parallel) black pebblings of G and |P_i| denotes the number of pebbles on the graph during round i. Intuitively, cc(G) captures the amortized Space-Time complexity of pebbling m copies of G in parallel. The cumulative pebbling complexity of a graph G is of particular interest in the field of cryptography as cc(G) is tightly related to the amortized Area-Time complexity of the Data-Independent Memory-Hard Function (iMHF) f_{G,H} [Joël Alwen and Vladimir Serbinenko, 2015] defined using a constant indegree directed acyclic graph (DAG) G and a random oracle H(⋅). A secure iMHF should have amortized Space-Time complexity as high as possible, e.g., to deter brute-force password attacker who wants to find x such that f_{G,H}(x) = h. Thus, to analyze the (in)security of a candidate iMHF f_{G,H}, it is crucial to estimate the value cc(G) but currently, upper and lower bounds for leading iMHF candidates differ by several orders of magnitude. Blocki and Zhou recently showed that it is NP-Hard to compute cc(G), but their techniques do not even rule out an efficient (1+ε)-approximation algorithmmore »for any constant ε>0. We show that for any constant c > 0, it is Unique Games hard to approximate cc(G) to within a factor of c. Along the way, we show the hardness of approximation of the DAG Vertex Deletion problem on DAGs of constant indegree. Namely, we show that for any k,ε >0 and given a DAG G with N nodes and constant indegree, it is Unique Games hard to distinguish between the case that G is (e_1, d_1)-reducible with e_1=N^{1/(1+2 ε)}/k and d_1=k N^{2 ε/(1+2 ε)}, and the case that G is (e_2, d_2)-depth-robust with e_2 = (1-ε)k e_1 and d_2= 0.9 N^{(1+ε)/(1+2 ε)}, which may be of independent interest. Our result generalizes a result of Svensson who proved an analogous result for DAGs with indegree 𝒪(N).« less